In time, within a relatively short time, the obsolete and economically nonviable institution of slavery would have disappeared. The nation would have been spared awesome traumas from which it would never fully recover.

Point 1 - If Rome would have made the connection between steam power machines (which they had) they could have started using machinery to do the heavy lifting and their slavery also would have probably diminished and eventually went away.

Point 2 - The statement confirms exactly what I originally said "...the US was also founded on slavery and the fact that it was founded on a lie has haunted this country to this day..."

The founding Fathers who owned Slaves were the ones that said, "all men are created equal..." when you start with a lie bad things can be the result and racism is our curse.

When did the intellectualsfuck it all up?Why did the people from Quebecmove to Maine?

The fat men in their bikini brief beach shortsruining the lunches of the small American childrenwho just want to hang out on their beach with their shovels and pailsand who don't understand why these ugly men are practically naked

If only Chief Donnaconanever met Jacques Cartier and the village of Stadaconanever a home to a hoser

Says the poster who believes we'd be better off as a socialist nation...

I can only speak from experience, I work for a straight socialist company and they treat us really good, better by miles than any American company has treated me and I have been with what are considered "Gold Platted" companies in my life time.

The Socialist have treated me better than I could have imagined any employer would and yes they ask for high performance from their employees, but I was giving that shit away for years.

Like I say, sign me up, its just to bad we couldn’t get the full enchilada Socialist healthcare because of the Tea Baggers, from what I hear it’s a great system and it saves your nation trillions of dollars…fucking Tea Baggers high jacked the country at a time when we needed educated people running the show.

Do you really think it was the slaves who wrote all of this history down? It's the slave masters who have recorded most of these historical "facts". Poor people can't afford to write the history books. You are all reciting history written/approved by the upper crust, history which is certainly incorrect in many ways.

The truth about where slavery began etc is not available to modern man. "History is a lie agreed upon".

Hmm , so census workers were considered ' upper crust ' and those who read the data from the census bureau were upper crust as well ?

Interesting.

If they were so ' upper crust ' , why would they even bother to read ?? Wouldn't it be more elite to have people read to them as they relax?

Believe it or not Downer , being poor has little to do with being able to read or not read , or even write. The poor may have not been able to roam through a library , which is where the upper crust did have people read to them , but they could / can learn anything with the right teacher.

Hmm , so census workers were considered ' upper crust ' and those who read the data from the census bureau were upper crust as well ?

Interesting.

If they were so ' upper crust ' , why would they even bother to read ?? Wouldn't it be more elite to have people read to them as they relax?

Believe it or not Downer , being poor has little to do with being able to read or not read , or even write. The poor may have not been able to roam through a library , which is where the upper crust did have people read to them , but they could / can learn anything with the right teacher.

I don't think I disagree.

I didn't word my previous post carefully enough. My point is, the poor people's history is not the same as the history lived by the men who own(ed) the publishing houses, newspapers and schools.

No, I didn't. Because Dictatorship & Government control over your life don't exist within those two systems.

However, the problem is when too many socialist policies are inserted into Capitalism or in other words, a Mixed Economy (which is the economic system that many world countries have established, including the US and Canada). And hence, this enables regulations and legislations enacted by Government and lobbyists that represent Corporatism and that are supposed to protect the public, to indemnify themselves instead - and in many cases regardless of violations or poor manufacturing/production quality standards. THAT is the problem. And this is why Corporatism LOVES Mixed Economies. Whereas, in a truly capitalist society or a free market economy, there would be NO Government interference. In fact, there would NOT have been a Housing Bubble crisis. There also would NOT have been Government bailouts waiting for the financial institutions after they created AND then burst the Housing Bubble, which the Government fell for, hook, line and sinker. Nor would there be an imminently-bursting Treasury Bubble & USD collapse or looming Fiscal Cliff either. While many socialists will vehemently disagree (but then again, most of them know JACK SHIT ALL about economics, sound monetary policy & fiscal responsibility), free markets economies have worked well in the past. The best example of this is probably the Roaring Twenties.

Says the poster who believes we'd be better off as a socialist nation...

I can only speak from experience, I work for a straight socialist company and they treat us really good, better by miles than any American company has treated me and I have been with what are considered "Gold Platted" companies in my life time.

The Socialist have treated me better than I could have imagined any employer would and yes they ask for high performance from their employees, but I was giving that shit away for years.

Like I say, sign me up, its just to bad we couldn’t get the full enchilada Socialist healthcare because of the Tea Baggers, from what I hear it’s a great system and it saves your nation trillions of dollars…fucking Tea Baggers high jacked the country at a time when we needed educated people running the show.

You're ABSOLUTELY nuts.

Also, Obamacare is one of the reasons why we're STILL in the economic mess we're in...

...free markets economies have worked well in the past. The best example of this is probably the Roaring Twenties.

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. However, I do remember the Roaring Twenties being terminated by the Wall Street Crash, which lead to the Great Depression and global mass-unemployment. I tend to go along with Galbraith when he claims that prior to the crash “It would be hard to imagine a corporate system better designed to continue and accentuate a deflationary cycle. ...The fact was that American enterprise in the twenties had opened its hospitable arms to an exceptional number of promoters, grafters, swindlers, impostors, and frauds. This, in the long history of such activities, was a kind of flood tide of corporate larceny." (quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Crash,_1929)Plus the fact that the Roaring Twenties tended to be roaring mainly for the 5 per cent of the population with the highest incomes, who had one third of all personal income in 1929.

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

...free markets economies have worked well in the past. The best example of this is probably the Roaring Twenties.

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. However, I do remember the Roaring Twenties being terminated by the Wall Street Crash, which lead to the Great Depression and global mass-unemployment. I tend to go along with Galbraith when he claims that prior to the crash “It would be hard to imagine a corporate system better designed to continue and accentuate a deflationary cycle. ...The fact was that American enterprise in the twenties had opened its hospitable arms to an exceptional number of promoters, grafters, swindlers, impostors, and frauds. This, in the long history of such activities, was a kind of flood tide of corporate larceny." (quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Crash,_1929)Plus the fact that the Roaring Twenties tended to be roaring mainly for the 5 per cent of the population with the highest incomes, who had one third of all personal income in 1929.

Give me a break.

I KNEW you'd post something like this.

1. The Roaring Twenties weren't part of The Great Depression. 2. For virtually the entire decade, unemployment rates were amongst the lowest rates of the entire century (and probably would've been THE absolute lowest, if it weren't for Prohibition - which comprised much of the wealth produced by the criminal activity you speak of). 3. MANY industries flourished and were highly productive during this period, not just the wealthiest 5% of the population. 4. And it's NO coincidence that Harding & Coolidge contributed to this boom by adopting free market principles & cutting spending, etc.

...free markets economies have worked well in the past. The best example of this is probably the Roaring Twenties.

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. However, I do remember the Roaring Twenties being terminated by the Wall Street Crash, which lead to the Great Depression and global mass-unemployment. I tend to go along with Galbraith when he claims that prior to the crash “It would be hard to imagine a corporate system better designed to continue and accentuate a deflationary cycle. ...The fact was that American enterprise in the twenties had opened its hospitable arms to an exceptional number of promoters, grafters, swindlers, impostors, and frauds. This, in the long history of such activities, was a kind of flood tide of corporate larceny." (quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Crash,_1929)Plus the fact that the Roaring Twenties tended to be roaring mainly for the 5 per cent of the population with the highest incomes, who had one third of all personal income in 1929.

Give me a break.

I KNEW you'd post something like this.

1. The Roaring Twenties weren't part of The Great Depression. 2. For virtually the entire decade, unemployment rates were amongst the lowest rates of the entire century (and probably would've been THE absolute lowest, if it weren't for Prohibition - which comprised much of the wealth produced by the criminal activity you speak of). 3. MANY industries flourished and were highly productive during this period, not just the wealthiest 5% of the population. 4. And it's NO coincidence that Harding & Coolidge contributed to this boom by adopting free market principles & cutting spending, etc.

Nice try...

I know, I'm so predictable.

I didn't say that the Roaring Twenties were part of the Great Depression. I was indicating that many argue that the hands-off economic policies pursued by Harding and Coolidge led to the Wall Street Crash and that this contributed to the Great Depression.

The economic boom experienced in the US for much of the 20s was also aided by the fact that the US had profited enormously from the First World War (flogging weapons to all and sundry) and had, in comparison to most of its major competitors (Germany, France), suffered no war damage, didn't owe other foreign countries money (in contrast to Germany, France, GB) and thus was in a good position to export goods to the rest of the world.

At the same time all US governments restricted imports by introducing even higher tariffs on imports e.g. the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922. I, personally, think such protectionist policies are not particularly free market. I'm also not sure to what extent such protectionist policies are possible today.

The lack of control exhibited by both Harding and Coolidge over the forming of super large corporations, basically monopolies, is also a policy that has been criticized by free marketeers, as, according to many, this is the one area of the economy in which the government has a legitimate interest to step in.

In the end, I'm not entirely convinced that an 8 year period of boom which ended in the Wall Street Crash is enough to prove that the free market practices of Harding and Coolidge were the economic panacea you say they are.One could equally argue, (which I won't) that the economic miracle in Germany in the 50s and 60s (no unemployment at all, huge growth rate, booming economy) is a proof that a social market economy is the way to the future.

All the same DB, I think the general thrust of your argument is interesting and legitimate....Got another example, apart from the Roaring Twenties?

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

...free markets economies have worked well in the past. The best example of this is probably the Roaring Twenties.

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. However, I do remember the Roaring Twenties being terminated by the Wall Street Crash, which lead to the Great Depression and global mass-unemployment. I tend to go along with Galbraith when he claims that prior to the crash “It would be hard to imagine a corporate system better designed to continue and accentuate a deflationary cycle. ...The fact was that American enterprise in the twenties had opened its hospitable arms to an exceptional number of promoters, grafters, swindlers, impostors, and frauds. This, in the long history of such activities, was a kind of flood tide of corporate larceny." (quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Crash,_1929)Plus the fact that the Roaring Twenties tended to be roaring mainly for the 5 per cent of the population with the highest incomes, who had one third of all personal income in 1929.

Quote:

Give me a break.

I KNEW you'd post something like this.

1. The Roaring Twenties weren't part of The Great Depression. 2. For virtually the entire decade, unemployment rates were amongst the lowest rates of the entire century (and probably would've been THE absolute lowest, if it weren't for Prohibition - which comprised much of the wealth produced by the criminal activity you speak of). 3. MANY industries flourished and were highly productive during this period, not just the wealthiest 5% of the population. 4. And it's NO coincidence that Harding & Coolidge contributed to this boom by adopting free market principles & cutting spending, etc.

Nice try...

Quote:

I know, I'm so predictable.

I didn't say that the Roaring Twenties were part of the Great Depression. I was indicating that many argue that the hands-off economic policies pursued by Harding and Coolidge led to the Wall Street Crash and that this contributed to the Great Depression.

The economic boom experienced in the US for much of the 20s was also aided by the fact that the US had profited enormously from the First World War (flogging weapons to all and sundry) and had, in comparison to most of its major competitors (Germany, France), suffered no war damage, didn't owe other foreign countries money (in contrast to Germany, France, GB) and thus was in a good position to export goods to the rest of the world.

At the same time all US governments restricted imports by introducing even higher tariffs on imports e.g. the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922. I, personally, think such protectionist policies are not particularly free market. I'm also not sure to what extent such protectionist policies are possible today.

The lack of control exhibited by both Harding and Coolidge over the forming of super large corporations, basically monopolies, is also a policy that has been criticized by free marketeers, as, according to many, this is the one area of the economy in which the government has a legitimate interest to step in.

In the end, I'm not entirely convinced that an 8 year period of boom which ended in the Wall Street Crash is enough to prove that the free market practices of Harding and Coolidge were the economic panacea you say they are.One could equally argue, (which I won't) that the economic miracle in Germany in the 50s and 60s (no unemployment at all, huge growth rate, booming economy) is a proof that a social market economy is the way to the future.

All the same DB, I think the general thrust of your argument is interesting and legitimate....Got another example, apart from the Roaring Twenties?

Reading posts by you two is like reading Newsweek or Time magazine .

Cut through the wordage...it's all down to human greed. None of these systems or bullshit "markets" have anything to do with it. There was no 8 year boom or depression or Wall St type crash anywhere ever that wasn't fabricated by the same fuckers that fabricate the economy and the wars and everything else that gets shoved down our throats. Or whatever. The roaring 20s never existed. The media and their pathetic, inaccurate labels is all there is.

1. The Roaring Twenties weren't part of The Great Depression. 2. For virtually the entire decade, unemployment rates were amongst the lowest rates of the entire century (and probably would've been THE absolute lowest, if it weren't for Prohibition - which comprised much of the wealth produced by the criminal activity you speak of). 3. MANY industries flourished and were highly productive during this period, not just the wealthiest 5% of the population. 4. And it's NO coincidence that Harding & Coolidge contributed to this boom by adopting free market principles & cutting spending, etc.

Nice try...

I know, I'm so predictable.

I didn't say that the Roaring Twenties were part of the Great Depression. I was indicating that many argue that the hands-off economic policies pursued by Harding and Coolidge led to the Wall Street Crash and that this contributed to the Great Depression.

Who's "many?" Socialists? And I knew what you were indicating...and I think it's horse-shit. Because The Great Depression was primarily caused by Black Tuesday...and as far as I'm concerned, was prolonged by the failure of Hoover and Roosevelt to continue the free market principles adopted by Harding & Coolidge.

Caputh wrote:

The economic boom experienced in the US for much of the 20s was also aided by the fact that the US had profited enormously from the First World War (flogging weapons to all and sundry) and had, in comparison to most of its major competitors (Germany, France), suffered no war damage, didn't owe other foreign countries money (in contrast to Germany, France, GB) and thus was in a good position to export goods to the rest of the world.

At the same time all US governments restricted imports by introducing even higher tariffs on imports e.g. the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922. I, personally, think such protectionist policies are not particularly free market. I'm also not sure to what extent such protectionist policies are possible today.

If the US profits from WWI greatly contributed to the Roaring Twenties, then whey did the Depression of 1920-21 happen beforehand? This is something you conveniently forgot to mention and which Harding drastically curtailed thanks to the free market principles he adopted at the time. In comparison, the Long & Great Depressions were MUCH longer. And yes, you guessed it, the US Presidents elected during these periods did not adopt free market principles. Also, I never said the majority of the '20s were free markets. I said the US Presidents elected during 1920-1929 adopted free market principles.

Caputh wrote:

The lack of control exhibited by both Harding and Coolidge over the forming of super large corporations, basically monopolies, is also a policy that has been criticized by free marketeers, as, according to many, this is the one area of the economy in which the government has a legitimate interest to step in.

Lack of control, my ass. Harding & Coolidge were fucking geniuses (especially Harding) and knew what they were doing. Of course it's not a perfect economic system (nothing is). And I never, nor did anyone else claim that adopting free markets principles or establishing a free market itself would be utopian. But it definitely would (and has) improve(d) the quality of life for MILLIONS of people.

Caputh wrote:

In the end, I'm not entirely convinced that an 8 year period of boom which ended in the Wall Street Crash is enough to prove that the free market practices of Harding and Coolidge were the economic panacea you say they are.

Again, I never stated it was that. But a better economic system than other known systems? Definitely.

Caputh wrote:

One could equally argue, (which I won't) that the economic miracle in Germany in the 50s and 60s (no unemployment at all, huge growth rate, booming economy) is a proof that a social market economy is the way to the future.

No, it's proof (even if what you state was true) that some people are fine with relinquishing their freedoms, rights and desires to create capital and lives for themselves. Not to mention, allowing Government to control their lives. And I think that way of thinking is frightening and just plain fucking crazy.

Caputh wrote:

All the same DB, I think the general thrust of your argument is interesting and legitimate....Got another example, apart from the Roaring Twenties?

Yes, I do. Actually, you posted the link by Jim Powell where he described Mussolini's adoption of it from 1921-1925. Here's that link:

Cut through the wordage...it's all down to human greed. None of these systems or bullshit "markets" have anything to do with it. There was no 8 year boom or depression or Wall St type crash anywhere ever that wasn't fabricated by the same fuckers that fabricate the economy and the wars and everything else that gets shoved down our throats. Or whatever. The roaring 20s never existed. The media and their pathetic, inaccurate labels is all there is.

OK, I'll try and write like I'm writing for Penthouse or Screw magazine in the future.

Sexy, mid-thirties DB is on the money when he talks the talk about the economo depressionio of twenty-o to twenty-one in the US. "A chink in my armour!" chirps good-looking but casual Caputh.Big-breasted downer mydnyte is a girl(?) who likes trouble. Her two greatest assets are obvious; reading Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 69,00.html) and making Caputh and DB agree on something.

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank. The bankers create and authorize the printing of money, which is sold to the government at interest. They also "create" money by loaning money, giving the impression that actual money is created via interest on these loans.

But, no new money is actually created, only more debt. The debt is never really payable, but it eventually gets so screamingly large that the banks must withhold the creation of more debt, therefore putting the squeeze on nations. The only real way to get out of this is to have a real war so that everything is basically set back to zero.

This is why we have spent so much of our "money" (read: debt) on military appropriations. We want to come out on top. If it wasn't for our military, the nations we have borrowed funds from would have buried us years ago.

Now we are sunk tremendously in debt, and going all over the world just trying to get something major started. The false-flag event of 9/11/2001 was the "new Pearl Harbor" we needed to get the new world war started. Make no mistake about it, sooner or later Russia and China are going to get fed up with our jerking off in their back yards, and very bad things will start to happen.

It's by design. It's how the Western banking system works.

One would think that human beings could rise above this, but then one would be deluded regarding human nature. We're in for a mass decimation, if history is any example.

I bet you think that the sun, moon and stars are fabricated to, right?

Wrong.

Caputh wrote:

OK, I'll try and write like I'm writing for Penthouse or Screw magazine in the future.

Cool! Some emotional directness would be refreshing after all of your intellectual posturing.

Caputh wrote:

Sexy, mid-thirties DB is on the money when he talks the talk about the economo depressionio of twenty-o to twenty-one in the US

You 2 are unqualified to discuss the goddamn US and that's why I'm here. How can you deny the hypocrisy of Disco Boy and yourself blathering on about US politics? Come live it before you try to tell me what is really going on. This whole country was rigged from day one. You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. You wanna play the "I've read a bunch of shit about the 20s therefore I know what really happened" game? It's lame. The agreed upon history of the US is not even close to the reality. Sure, some people roared in the 20s. Sure, later there was a depression. It was instigated by manipulative, power hungry fucks who then hired writers to spin it.

This trend of allowing people to be considered experts based on what they have read, as opposed to what they have done/witnessed, is getting tiresome. Historians have great jobs but they distribute myth.

The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank. The bankers create and authorize the printing of money, which is sold to the government at interest. They also "create" money by loaning money, giving the impression that actual money is created via interest on these loans.

But, no new money is actually created, only more debt. The debt is never really payable, but it eventually gets so screamingly large that the banks must withhold the creation of more debt, therefore putting the squeeze on nations. The only real way to get out of this is to have a real war so that everything is basically set back to zero.

This is why we have spent so much of our "money" (read: debt) on military appropriations. We want to come out on top. If it wasn't for our military, the nations we have borrowed funds from would have buried us years ago.

Now we are sunk tremendously in debt, and going all over the world just trying to get something major started. The false-flag event of 9/11/2001 was the "new Pearl Harbor" we needed to get the new world war started. Make no mistake about it, sooner or later Russia and China are going to get fed up with our jerking off in their back yards, and very bad things will start to happen.

It's by design. It's how the Western banking system works.

One would think that human beings could rise above this, but then one would be deluded regarding human nature. We're in for a mass decimation, if history is any example.

Good points, as always.

downer mydnyte wrote:

Disco Boy wrote:

And the most "Predictable Post of the Year"...goes to...

Disco Boy

No. It's actually YOU.

downer mydnyte wrote:

Disco Boy wrote:

I bet you think that the sun, moon and stars are fabricated to, right?

Wrong.

No. It's actually RIGHT.

downer mydnyte wrote:

You 2 are unqualified to discuss the goddamn US and that's why I'm here. How can you deny the hypocrisy of Disco Boy and yourself blathering on about US politics? Come live it before you try to tell me what is really going on. This whole country was rigged from day one. You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. You wanna play the "I've read a bunch of shit about the 20s therefore I know what really happened" game? It's lame. The agreed upon history of the US is not even close to the reality. Sure, some people roared in the 20s. Sure, later there was a depression. It was instigated by manipulative, power hungry fucks who then hired writers to spin it.

This trend of allowing people to be considered experts based on what they have read, as opposed to what they have done/witnessed, is getting tiresome. Historians have great jobs but they distribute myth.

You 2 are unqualified to discuss the goddamn US and that's why I'm here. How can you deny the hypocrisy of Disco Boy and yourself blathering on about US politics? Come live it before you try to tell me what is really going on. This whole country was rigged from day one. You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. You wanna play the "I've read a bunch of shit about the 20s therefore I know what really happened" game? It's lame. The agreed upon history of the US is not even close to the reality. Sure, some people roared in the 20s. Sure, later there was a depression. It was instigated by manipulative, power hungry fucks who then hired writers to spin it.

This trend of allowing people to be considered experts based on what they have read, as opposed to what they have done/witnessed, is getting tiresome. Historians have great jobs but they distribute myth.

So a) You appear to have lived through the twenties, making you possibly the oldest member of the Zappa forum. In fact judging from your comments on the Dark Ages above, you were also in Europe between the fall of the Roman Empire and the reign of Charlemagne. If not, how did you absorb your knowledge about them - osmosis or a really old relative? b) You also appear to be very high up in US government as you have personally experienced all of its machinations to arrive at the judgement you do. c) You don't appear to realize that we were actually discussing the pros and cons of a free market economy in general and DB was using the Roaring 20s as an example.

At the moment, DM, you seem to think being born in America gives you the right to tell other people what to discuss. Perhaps you could give us a list of the topics you feel we are allowed to talk about.

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank. The bankers create and authorize the printing of money, which is sold to the government at interest. They also "create" money by loaning money, giving the impression that actual money is created via interest on these loans.

But, no new money is actually created, only more debt. The debt is never really payable, but it eventually gets so screamingly large that the banks must withhold the creation of more debt, therefore putting the squeeze on nations. The only real way to get out of this is to have a real war so that everything is basically set back to zero.

This is why we have spent so much of our "money" (read: debt) on military appropriations. We want to come out on top. If it wasn't for our military, the nations we have borrowed funds from would have buried us years ago.

Now we are sunk tremendously in debt, and going all over the world just trying to get something major started. The false-flag event of 9/11/2001 was the "new Pearl Harbor" we needed to get the new world war started. Make no mistake about it, sooner or later Russia and China are going to get fed up with our jerking off in their back yards, and very bad things will start to happen.

It's by design. It's how the Western banking system works.

One would think that human beings could rise above this, but then one would be deluded regarding human nature. We're in for a mass decimation, if history is any example.

Perhaps you could give us a list of the topics you feel we are allowed to talk about

You're allowed to discuss anything as far as I'm concerned. And I am allowed to call it bullshit.

Here is what I will not call bullshit: Any account of something you have actually experienced first hand.

You're "allowed" to spout bullshit but I am allowed to call you on it.

I just might start talking about politics in Germany. Or the mentality of closeted Nazis. Or Canada's willful submission to the US.

Just to be pedantic here DM, you say you wouldn't call 'any account of something you have actually experienced first hand' bullshit. But...it would still be that person's account...not necessarily what actually happened.

...and call them Nazis if they don't agree with you, particularly if you assume they're German. Classy, really classy. Reading really doesn't appear to be one of your many talents, downer mydnyte. As I said above, the topic which you criticized our discussion of was the Free Market. Now, I happen to have experienced a form of a Free Market Economy because I spent the first half of my life in Great Britain when Thatcher introduced one. Admittedly, I didn't experience the Wall Street Crash, but then neither did you. So my "bullshit" on this topic is probably about as informed as your "bullshit".At the moment, I have the impression that your motive for posting is basically a fairly futile attempt to establish some kind of personality on this forum - the straight talking US dude. The net effect of your posts, however, in my personal, first hand experience, is a combination of naivety, cynicism and bigotry. But keep trying, perhaps it will get better.BTW, you're completely wrong about Germany. It is entirely filled with 100% Nazis, we don't need closet Nazis here. Everybody is a Nazi. In fact, I live next door to Hermann Goering. Every day, I get up and say "Heil Hitler!" We exterminate Jews for tea every day. The one in our street who exterminates the most every week, wins a signed picture of Angela Merkel. I know. I've had personal, first hand experience and I'm English - imagine what the Germans must be like.

_________________"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, here discusses influence, controlling the public mind and government.

“There will be, in the next generation or so, a *SPAM* method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by *SPAM* methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.” Aldous Huxley

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum